Premature challenge to claim admission and voting share fails; documentary liability supported financial creditor status under insolvency law.

Challenges to claim admission and voting share determination were held premature when brought before the resolution plan was ready for approval, because interference at that stage would disrupt the insolvency resolution process. The tribunal also found that deposit agreements, corporate guarantees, debenture trust deeds, promissory notes, escrow arrangements and recall notices were sufficient to show the corporate debtor's liability as obligor or co-obligor. On that basis, objections based on absence of privity, no direct borrowing and alleged lack of supporting documents were rejected, and the claimants were treated as financial creditors with validly admitted claims.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applications challenging admission of claims and voting share determination were maintainable at the stage when the resolution plan had not yet been approved. (ii) Whether the documents relied upon by the claimants established their status as financial creditors of the corporate debtor.

Issue (i): Whether the applications challenging admission of claims and voting share determination were maintainable at the stage when the resolution plan had not yet been approved.

Analysis: The applications were filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to question claim admission and voting share fixation during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The Tribunal followed the principle that interference at a stage before the resolution plan is placed for approval is impermissible, since such challenges are to be considered only after the plan is voted upon and when the matter has crystallised for adjudication. Entertaining the applications at that stage would interrupt the insolvency process.

Conclusion: The applications were held to be premature and not maintainable at that stage.

Issue (ii): Whether the documents relied upon by the claimants established their status as financial creditors of the corporate debtor.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the deposit agreements, corporate guarantees, debenture trust deeds, promissory notes, escrow arrangements and recall notices produced by the respondents. It held that the documents themselves showed liability of the corporate debtor as obligor or co-obligor and that the claimants were entitled to enforce the contractual and security obligations arising from those instruments. The objections based on absence of privity, alleged lack of direct borrowing, and alleged want of documentary support were rejected as the records were sufficient to support admission of the claims.

Conclusion: The claimants were correctly treated as financial creditors and their claims were validly admitted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to admission of claims and to the voting share determination failed, and the resolution professional was permitted to proceed with the committee of creditors' decisions and the resolution process.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to claim admission under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is premature before the resolution plan is ripe for approval, and documentary instruments showing the corporate debtor's liability as obligor or co-obligor are sufficient to sustain financial creditor status and claim admission.

---